Love vs Tyranny

Is this the part where we ignore the OP's attempts to steer the discussion back on topic? Or can we draw the connections between the original topic and the direction the discussion has taken as of this moment?

reply to post by AfterInfinity


What else would you like? I gave my opinion already.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Is this the part where we ignore the OP's attempts to steer the discussion back on topic?

You haven't posted in this thread since 4pm yesterday, though you've been otherwise active on the site, so it's a little difficult to sympathize with your incredulity.

However, as I noted earlier, your last appearance was prior to this post, would you care to respond to that direct question now?

reply to post by adjensen

You haven't posted in this thread since 4pm yesterday, though you've been otherwise active on the site, so it's a little difficult to sympathize with your incredulity.

However, as I noted earlier, your last appearance was prior to this post, would you care to respond to that direct question now?

I have been experiencing technical difficulties. By the time I had returned to this thread, the conversation had digressed to subject material of which I could make no connections to the original premise.

My apologies for the lack of continuum. Your question!

Then why are the definitions (and, by extension, standards,) those relating to human beings?

If you're honestly asking a question, not attempting to further a cause, you need to explain how God and a repressive government are the same thing, or else restate your question in a non-subjective form.

That's a good question. Oddly enough, I have an even better question for you: if human definitions aren't good enough to describe a godly being, then why is it that people are always using these words (and by extension, their definitions) to defend a god?

I compared "God" to an oppressive government. If you take contention with that, then prove to me that it is flawed comparison.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

And I gave my opinion. I don't believe God is a tyrant. I believe He is sovereign, Holy, and righteous.

Why do you believe that?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
I compared "God" to an oppressive government. If you take contention with that, then prove to me that it is flawed comparison.

God and human government have few, if any, characteristics in common, so I again ask why you think that it is an apt comparison?

But let me cut to the chase -- you believe that God is a tyrant, because he has some laws that he wants you to follow, right? Every system of morality has some laws that they want you to follow, so are you saying that morality and civilization, in themselves, are tyrannical? That love and freedom can only exist in anarchy and chaos?

reply to post by adjensen

God and human government have few, if any, characteristics in common, so I again ask why you think that it is an apt comparison?

Or maybe you're just not willing to look that closely.

"God" likes control. So does the government. "God" punishes all rebellion with extreme prejudice. So does the government. "God" knows everything. The government wants to. "God" wants monkeys to grease his gears. SO does the government. "God" dislikes independence. The government restricts nomads. "God" claims to have only our best interests in mind. Government claims the same. "God" created his own problems. So did the government. "God" blames his problems on his creations. The government blames its difficulties on each other and takes it out on the peons and working class.

But let me cut to the chase -- you believe that God is a tyrant, because he has some laws that he wants you to follow, right? Every system of morality has some laws that they want you to follow, so are you saying that morality and civilization, in themselves, are tyrannical? That love and freedom can only exist in anarchy and chaos?

If he gave everyone the freedom to choose their own destiny and face the natural earthly consequences of their actions without his ever having to step in, I would be happy. I want him to go the hell away because he obviously isn't doing as much as he can but wants more than he's willing to give.

But that's just my opinion. I am asking you to defend your god since he obviously can't be bothered to face me himself.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by adjensen

 

"God" punishes all rebellion with extreme prejudice.

No he doesn't.

"God" knows everything. The government wants to.

Not the same thing.

"God" wants monkeys to grease his gears. SO does the government.

I have no idea what this means.

"God" dislikes independence.

No he doesn't.

The remainder of your claims are just gibberish.

If he gave everyone the freedom to choose their own destiny and face the natural earthly consequences of their actions without his ever having to step in, I would be happy.

I have never seen any indication that anything else is the case. What is your evidence that this is not the case?

I am asking you to defend your god since he obviously can't be bothered to face me himself.

Mighty high opinion that you have of yourself there. But by your claims, there is no god to "face you", and by mine, you will have your opportunity to complain to him in person someday.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


I actually have heard of it, me and adjensen discussed it in another thread months ago.

How are you being analytical by taking it at face value? To accept without question does not mean you analyze it. The interpretation I have is what has lead out of the words from my objective, analytical study of the scripture.

Being objective means you are not influenced by personal emotion. You are far from objective when you interpret the bible. Taking everything at face value is the complete opposite of objectivity.

reply to post by adjensen

I have never seen any indication that anything else is the case. What is your evidence that this is not the case?

Hell is not an earthly consequence. And to the contrary, he is a jealous god. If you do not obey his wishes, you are not worth having. This has been stated numerous times in the Bible.

Rebellion is as sinful as witchcraft. (1 Samuel 15:23, NLT2)

Evil people are eager for rebellion. (Proverbs 17:11, NLT2)

If you will only obey me, you will have plenty to eat. But if you turn away and refuse to listen, you will be devoured by the sword of your enemies. I, the LORD, have spoken! (Isaiah 1:19-20, NLT2)

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. (Romans 13:1-2, NIV)

“What sorrow awaits my rebellious children,” says the LORD. “You make plans that are contrary to mine. You make alliances not directed by my Spirit, thus piling up your sins.” (Isaiah 30:1, NLT2)

Don’t you realize that you become the slave of whatever you choose to obey? You can be a slave to sin, which leads to death, or you can choose to obey God, which leads to righteous living. (Romans 6:16, NLT2)

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by adjensen

 

I have never seen any indication that anything else is the case. What is your evidence that this is not the case?

Hell is not an earthly consequence. And to the contrary, he is a jealous god. If you do not obey his wishes, you are not worth having. This has been stated numerous times in the Bible.

That isn't what you said:

If he gave everyone the freedom to choose their own destiny and face the natural earthly consequences of their actions without his ever having to step in, I would be happy.

You have the freedom to choose your own destiny, God doesn't choose it for you.

You will face the natural earthly consequences of your actions.

God doesn't step in.

I don't see what your complaint is. Are you mad about hell? What does that have to do with what you posted?

You don't believe in God. You don't believe in hell. I really don't see any point to anything that you're posting, apart from you thinking that you're making a clever point somehow.

reply to post by adjensen

I don't see what your complaint is. Are you mad about hell? What does that have to do with what you posted?

You don't believe in God. You don't believe in hell. I really don't see any point to anything that you're posting, apart from you thinking that you're making a clever point somehow.

Simply put, I am inviting any and all members to defend the validity of their beliefs based on the ideas we have applied to said beliefs. You believe "God" is love. I see symptoms of tyranny. Explain why you believe "God" is love, seeing as how I have already provided my argument.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

And I gave my opinion. I don't believe God is a tyrant. I believe He is sovereign, Holy, and righteous.

Why do you believe that?

Same reason I believe the father and mother of a house get to make the rules for that said house.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

I actually have heard of it, me and adjensen discussed it in another thread months ago.

How are you being analytical by taking it at face value? To accept without question does not mean you analyze it. The interpretation I have is what has lead out of the words from my objective, analytical study of the scripture.

Being objective means you are not influenced by personal emotion. You are far from objective when you interpret the bible. Taking everything at face value is the complete opposite of objectivity.

Read the link, therein lies your answer.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Same reason I believe the father and mother of a house get to make the rules for that said house.

So we're willing to compare a godly father to a human father, but we're not willing to judge a god by human definitions or standards?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
You believe "God" is love. I see symptoms of tyranny. Explain why you believe "God" is love, seeing as how I have already provided my argument.

Why should I care what you see "symptoms" of? Similarly, my beliefs are just as subjective, so it's a pointless debate.

You want to think God is a tyrant with no evidence for it, knock yourself out. Like I said, he either doesn't exist, so it's a moot point, or he does, and you can complain to him in person at that time.

reply to post by adjensen


Why did you even bother posting on this thread, if you feel it's that pointless?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by adjensen

 

Why did you even bother posting on this thread, if you feel it's that pointless?

Because I thought you had a point to it in the beginning and just weren't articulating it properly. That does not appear to be the case.

reply to post by adjensen


You stated that there is no "proof" that Jesus was an Essene, and I countered that there is no proof that the Biblical Jesus existed.

It's not my goal to prove that Jesus didn't exist, only to prove to you that there is indeed a scholarly debate, ongoing, on the existence of the Biblical Jesus. There is no evidence of a "Biblical" Jesus, who was born of a Virgin, performed certain miracles, had certain conversations and said certain things and then rose from the dead. There is no proof!

Try to keep up! I know it's hard to do when you entire purpose of posting it to derail.

When one understands who the Essenes were and what they believed, it easy to correlate Jesus and and John the Baptist with the Essenes.

The fact that Jesus introduced a kinder, gentler God than the one of the Old Testament draws a line between the tyrannical God of the Old Testament, and the different new "Father God" that Jesus introduces to his "flock."

You can't say that the Old Testament God wasn't tyrannical. He was, and there's no disputing it! You're just hoping that we forget everything we read about the tyrannical God of the OT and replace that memory with new and improved version of God that Jesus presents, and pretend that the OT never really existed.

reply to post by adjensen

Because I thought you had a point to it in the beginning and just weren't articulating it properly. That does not appear to be the case.

I do have a point. Does tyranny become love just because of the subject matter? If we brought "God" down to earth and instated him as a President or Prime Minister and he continued to rule the way he does now, would we call that love? Or would he be thrown out of office?